Panetta, rendition and torture

by Jay McDonough

Leon Panetta, Barack Obama's Central Intelligence Agency Director nominee, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday.  Senators questioned Mr. Panetta about two subjects in particular; the use of rendition and torture by the CIA. 

As noted yesterday, Mr. Panetta needed to answer questions as to his role in the use of rendition during the Clinton Administration and his view on the expanded use of rendition by the Bush White House.   I cited a Boston Globe op-ed piece by Richard Clarke that suggested rendition during the Clinton years was used on a limited basis and the captured detainees were returned to the U.S. for criminal prosecution.  It appears Mr. Clarke's op-ed doesn't quite tell the whole story.

New Yorker writer, Jane Mayer (who deserves some kind of award for the work she's done investigating the use of covert and illegal means prosecuting this so called "war on terror"), has a fairly comprehensive analysis of the development and evolution in the use of rendition by the Central Intelligence Agency.   According to Ms. Mayer, there was, in fact, CIA participation through the 1990's in the abduction and transfering of terrorists to countries such as Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Morocco.  These countries, known for their brutal interrogation methods, provided information back to the U.S. intelligence forces. 

There does appear to be at least one substantive difference between the use of rendition during the Clinton and Bush Administrations.  Prior to September, 2001 those subjects rendered by the CIA had to be approved on a case by case basis and had either been convicted in absentia or had outstanding warrants.  Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, President Bush signed then secret directives that would allow CIA renditions without pre-approvals and could include not only wanted suspects but "suspected" terrorists as well.  Mr. Panetta, during questioning, made the distinction between rendering criminals to be prosecuted vs. rendering suspects for interrogation.

Mr. Panetta testified the CIA would continue the use of rendition, but not transfer terrorism suspects to any nation that would use interrogation methods “that violate our human values.”

Regarding torture, Mr. Panetta testified he would leave open the possibility the CIA may request permission to use interrogation methods more aggressive than the Army Field Manual (the Obama Administration standard) allows.

Under insistent questioning from a Senate panel, Mr. Panetta said that in extreme cases, if interrogators were unable to extract critical information from a terrorism suspect, he would seek White House approval for the C.I.A. to use methods that would go beyond those permitted under the new rules.

“If we had a ticking bomb situation, and obviously, whatever was being used I felt was not sufficient, I would not hesitate to go to the president of the United States and request whatever additional authority I would need,” Mr. Panetta said in his nomination hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

He gave no specifics about what interrogation methods he would suggest, but he said that the agency would always abide by the law. He also said he believed that interrogators could reliably get information from detainees using noncoercive means.

“We can protect this country, we can get the information we need, we can provide for the security of the American people and we can abide by the law,” Mr. Panetta said. “I’m absolutely convinced that we can do that.” (Link)

Here's my problem.  Leon Panetta sounds exactly like every Bush Administration official who's ever testified about their use of rendition and torture.  "We would never transfer a detainee to be tortured by another country and all our interrogations are legal". We know, tragically, those are lies.  Leon Panetta sounds just like another equivocating, vague Bush Administration official.

Perhaps this is another part of the Bush Administration legacy.  We cannot, despite assurances otherwise, trust our government not to render and torture detainees.  Regardless of what they say.

Comments

[Steve Hynd]

Great post, Jay.

Unfortunately, you're correct - we cannot trust an administration which will shield past torturers and orderers of torture not to do more of the same. Yet by and large liberals appear to want to stick their heads in the sand on this.

Regards, C

[HarryB]

Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss.

Hope = Catastrophe
Change = SOSO